Societal Implications of the USA Patriot Act and How It Limits Daily Life - Essay Example

Introduction Six weeks after the tragic events of September 11, the U.S Congress passed the patriotic act, which was a revision of surveillance laws giving the government more power to spy on its citizens. The act also reduced checks and balances enshrined in the American constitution such as public accountability, judicial oversight, and the ability to oppose government searches in a court of law (Kashan, 2014). Most changes to the U.S surveillance laws that were contained in the patriotic act were laws that congress had opposed for a long time. It is argued that congress passed the act because of coercion from the Bush administration and the panic caused by the event of September 11 (Kashan, 2014). Societal Implications of the USA PATRIOT Act and How It Limits Daily Life One of the main ways the patriotic act limited people’s daily lives is by making them to accept unreasonable casual violation of their basic rights. For instance, the act made Americans to accept without questioning that security agencies can subject them to unreasonable searches and seizures when they are travelling (Kashan, 2014). Patriotic act limits the rights of Americans by increasing the capabilities of government to carry out surveillance in four areas. The act gives the government the power to conduct record searches. It does this by expanding the ability of the government to examine records indicating a person’s activity that are in third party possession. The Patriotic act also authorizes secret searches that enable the government to search private property without issuing a notice (Kashan, 2014). The Patriotic act also authorizes the government to conduct intelligence searches by extending an exception in the fourth amendment that was made to enable the government gather foreign intelligence. The act also allows the government to engage in trap and trace searches by enabling the government to track the source and targets of communications and the content. The provisions of the patriotic act limit daily life by violating individual privacy (Kashan, 2014). The act gives the government unchecked power to examine a person’s internet usage, medical history, library usage, and any other activity that leaves a record of some kind. This not only violates individual right to privacy protected in the fourth amend but may make people to refrain from certain activities for fear of being watched by the government (Kashan, 2014). In spite of the criticism of the patriotic act for limiting individual life and freedom, president Obama in 2011 renewed the act. Americans have increasingly opposed the patriotic act because it violates the right of the people to remain secure in their homes, documents and unreasonable searches and seizure (Kashan, 2014). However, there are those who support the patriotic act despite of the limitation it places on daily lives of citizens. Supporters of the patriotic act have defended it because it has been effective in preventing terrorist attacks in the last ten years. On the other hand, opponents argue that civil liberties that are protected in the constitution cannot be sacrificed for the sake of public security (Kashan, 2014). The patriotic act has enabled the U.S government to spy and get information on any person. In addition, the government does not reveal the methods it uses to get information or the reason for obtaining such information. This has left citizens in the dark and even made them more skeptical of the role of government (Kashan, 2014). Concerns Related To Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, and Religion The main concern related to race, ethnicity, gender, age and religion after September 11 was the targeting of Arabs and Muslims. This was considered racial profiling by U.S security agencies. The war on terror declared by the Bush administration targeted Muslim and Arabs without any concrete evidence that they were involved in terrorist activities (Kleiner, 2010). Immediately after September 11, most Americans did not see anything wrong with the racial profiling. Some Americans even condoned the use of controversial methods like torture of suspects in preventing terrorist attacks in future. After September 11, Muslims and Arabs of the Middle Eastern descent were unfairly targeted (Kleiner, 2010). But reality is that terrorist can be from any ethnic group, age, education, sex and economic status. This is best exemplified by the case of John Walker Lindh who was an American citizen and a Taliban (Kleiner, 2010). Richard Reid, the shoe bomber in Britain was a British citizen and a member of an Al Qaeda. Reid was also able to recruit sympathizers from different backgrounds. The racial profiling used by the U.S security agencies would not have identified Reid and Walker as potential terrorist because their program targets Arab Muslim men and boys (Kleiner, 2010). In 1995, after the Oklahoma City bombings, law enforcement agents were searching for Arab suspects and ended up detaining a Jordanian. However, the bomber was Timothy McVeigh an American citizen. This has made experts to discredit racial profiling that targets minorities as an effective way of fighting terrorism. Racial profiling is sometimes erroneously executed resulting in wrongful targets (Kleiner, 2010). For example, racial profiling has made American Sikhs to be mistaken for Muslim Arabs due to their skin color, style of dress and accent. In reality, not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslims. Most of American Arabs that are assumed to be Muslims are actually Christians (Kleiner, 2010). Most Muslim Americans in the U.S are actually African Americans or South Asians. Racial profiling also led to the mistreatment of the ethnic minorities that were targeted. The Office of Inspector General released a report in April 2003 that showed how noncitizens that were held for violating immigration charges were treated (Kleiner, 2010). The held individuals were not told the immigration charges that they were facing in time. This made it difficult for them to obtain bonds or meet with their counsels; the noncitizens were also detained under poor conditions (Kleiner, 2010). Arabs and Muslims have been target since September 11 because evidence show that the perpetrators of the attacks were Arabs Muslims who were noncitizens. Racial profiling made federal investigators to start interviewing over 5,000 young men from the Middle East who had moved to the U.S two years before the attacks (Kleiner, 2010). The young men interviewed were from countries that were connected to terrorist activities. Federal officials also contacted over 200 colleges in the U.S with the aim of collecting information on students from the Middle East. Federal officials also made impromptu visits to American colleges in order interview students from the Middle East (Kleiner, 2010). The Impact of Technology and Globalization and the Balance of Individual Rights against Public Safety Globalization has enabled crime and criminals to cross borders. This has made the police to encounter new challenges in ensuring public safety, arresting offenders, and investigating crime. Criminals are also increasingly using technology in executing their activities. This has made it difficult for law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism and other crimes (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). The 9/11 terrorist attack was also made possible by globalization that has enabled the free movement of people, goods and information. The terrorist were able to migrate to the U.S and gather information that would aid their attacks (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). Balancing public safety and individual rights has remained a controversial issue in the U.S and has elicited different opinions. The discussion on public safety and individual rights intensified after the September 11 attacks with the passage of the patriotic act (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). Those who supported the act argued that curtailing civil liberties for the sake public safety is reasonable. Opponents of the act argued that civil liberties like the right to privacy cannot be interfered with for the sake of public safety. Measures to ensure public safety should not curtail individual rights because individual liberty is one of the foundations on which the U.S as a democracy is based on (Cornell University Law School, 2014). Moreover, there are several statutes that protect individual rights. The first statute protects individuals against hate crimes based on religion, race ethnicity, nationality and color among others. The second statute protects individuals from conspiracy meant to harm, oppress or threaten them, prevent them from enjoying their rights as guaranteed by the constitution (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). The third statute prohibits law enforcement agencies and the government from denying people their rights under the color of law. This means that the act of detaining terror suspect without trial or access to counsel constitutes violation of their individual rights. The fourth federal statute on civil rights prohibits intimidation, interference, or willful harm of any class of people because of their participation in public and democratic functions (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). The fifth statute criminalizes church arson whereby it prohibits individuals from vandalizing any physical religious property because of race, religion, and ethnic predisposition of the property. It is evident that federal civil rights statutes protect individual rights especially from being curtailed based on race. The racial profiling that law enforcement agents engaged in after September 11 targeted individuals because of their religion and ethnicity. This amounted to a violation of civil rights (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). A part from the federal civil rights, the fourth amendment also protects individual rights especially from an unreasonable searches and seizures. The patriotic act violates the fourth amendment because it enabled law enforcement agencies to carryout unreasonable searches and seizures, and surveillance (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). The fourth amendment enshrined in the U.S constitution is the main law that protects individuals against unreasonable searches, seizures and by extension surveillance. The fourth amendment stipulates that “The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized” (Cornell University Law School, 2014, para. 1 ) Seizure occurs when governmental authorities detain individuals or acquire their items. On the other hand, searches refer to any intrusive act by the government into anything that an individual regard as private (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). Based on the provisions of the fourth amendment, the police and other security personnel should only carryout searches and seizures that are reasonable. Carrying out reasonable searches and seizures require that security agents should obtain warrants any time they want to conduct searches and seizure. However, the patriotic act enables security agents to search and seize property of terror suspect without notice (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). Acts of surveillance like eavesdropping on telephone conversation by the government also constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment depending on the circumstances under which it occurs (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). Courts in the U.S have ruled that wiretapping constitutes violation of the fourth amendment the amendment safeguards individual right to privacy in situations where an individual expects to have privacy (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). In balancing individual rights against public safety, it is important for the government to ensure that the measures put in place to ensure public safety do not infringe on individual rights. Individual rights are an important element of democratic governance, and they are safeguarded in the federal civil rights statutes and the constitution (Cornell University Law School, 2014 ). The Influence of Domestic and International Terrorism In Relation To Government Agencies and Private Security Government agencies and private security around the world are increasingly facing new challenges with the emergence of globally coordinated criminal networks like terrorist groups. In response government agencies are creating strategies that are adaptive in fighting terrorism. For example, local police have adopted approaches that emphasize on preventing terrorism (U.S Department of State, 2014). Local law enforcement agencies are now gathering information that is crucial in fighting terrorism within their jurisdiction. Local law enforcement agencies have also improved their analytical capabilities. Awareness has also increased whereby local law enforcement agencies are able to identify behaviors that are linked to terrorism (U.S Department of State, 2014). At the National level, the U.S Department of state has declared that the solution for curbing terrorism is advancing human dignity and freedom through democracy. Democratic governance is effective in combating terrorism because democratic governments can maintain order in their territories (U.S Department of State, 2014). References Cornell University Law School. (2014 , February 8). Retrieved November 23, 2014 from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentiv Kashan, S. (2014). The USA patriotic act: Impact on freedom and civil liberties. Retrieved November 23, 2014 from: http://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=essai Kleiner, Y. S. (2010). Racial profiling in the name of national security: Protecting minority travelers' civil liberties in the age of terorrirism. Third World War Journal , 103-144. U.S Department of State. (2014). National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Retrieved November 23, 2014 from: http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/71803.htm Read More